The Apostles have not only given us fketches of their general character, but of their propensity to SATIRE AND RIDICULE -of the INCONSISTENCIES of those opinions which they propose to substitute for the principles of Christianity—and of their ATTEMPTS to fubvert the truth of the MOSAICAL HISTORY by the DISCOVERIES of MODERN PHILOSOPHY, and the invention of NEW THEORIES OF THE EARTH.

The perfons predicted by St. Peter to appear in the last days, eminent for their hoftility to the Christian name, are scofFERS-those who, in their attacks upon it, exercise the fneers of sarcasm, and the taunts of mockery, where the facred nature of the subject peculiarly demands the gravity of argument, and the most perfect feriousness of attention. To whom can this characteristic mark of the Apostle be applied fo appofitely, as to those who ridicule the Scriptures, and deride the profeffors and teachers of Chriftianity, as well as its peculiar doctrines and precepts? Such has been the invariable practice, and fuch the prominent feature in the works of Voltaire, of Gibbon, and of Paine. They have employed every engine of mockery and

Scoffing

Jcoffing against the facred bulwarks of Revelation; and they have in every part of their works combined every image that was ludicrous, and every idea that was grofs and profane, with the truths of the Gofpel.

The moft celebrated of thefe" falfe teachers" are fometimes at variance with themselves, and fometimes with each other, whilft they endeavour, by the aid of their own reafon only, to fettle the first principles of religion, or to fhew that none can be found. Hume' in one paffage of his dialogues entertains no doubt as to the existence of a Supreme Being; and in another afferts, that he has met with nothing but a blind nature impregnated with a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap without difcernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive offfpring.-Shaftesbury afferts, that the Deity is a good Being; whereas Bolingbroke maintains that he is not a good Being.With respect to the origin of the world, Hume concludes, from the appearances of the universe, and from fome hiftorical facts,

• See Ogilvie on Scepticism.

that

that the world was framed at no remote era. Voltaire, on the contrary, infers from facts likewise, to which he gives the most implicit faith, that its origin is to be carried back to a period far beyond the Scriptural chronology.-Bolingbroke, when confidering the nature of man, maintains that his foul is mortal, and that it dies with the body; but Hume afferts that man has no foul, but is a piece of ingenious mechanism constructed by a blind nature." Even in the first letters of Frederick II. King of Pruffia, there appears, with the ridiculous pride of a pedantic King, all the versatility and hypocrify of a fophift. Frederick in 1737 denies, when Voltaire fupports, liberty. With Voltaire, man, in 1771, is a pure machine: Frederick then maintains that man is free. In one place we are free precifely because we can form a clear idea of freedom. In another, man is all matter; though one can hardly form a more confused idea, than that of matter thinking, free, or arguing, though it were with Frederick's own verfatility." Voltaire at nearly fourfcore confiders Scepticism concerning a Deity and a foul, as the most rational state

s Barruel.

of mind. Frederick thinks

66 we have a

Sufficient degree of probability to constitute a certainty that death is an eternal fleep ;" and maintains that man is not twofold, but only matter animated by motion; that there exifts no relation between animals and the fupreme Intelligence, and is certain that matter can think as well as have the property of being electric.-Frederick had written that the Chriftian religion yielded none but poisonous weeds; and Voltaire had congratulated him "as having above all princes fortitude of foul, and sufficient insight and knowledge, to fee that for the 1700 years paft, the Chriftian fect had never done any thing but harm." Yet we afterwards find Frederick the opponent of that infamoufly profligate work, the System of Nature," and " tempted to accuse its author of want of fenfe and skill, when calumniating the Christian religion, he imputes to it failings that it has not. How (afks he) can its Author with truth affert, that religion can be the cause of the misfortunes of mankind? What is there reprehenfible in the morals of the Commandments? The forgiveness of injuries, charity, humanity ; were not these preached by Jefus in his excellent Sermon on the mount ?" And

a fhort

a fhort time after fuch a direct acknowledgment of the excellence of this religion, we find this fame Frederick complimenting Voltaire on being its Scourge, and communicating to him his plans for its deftruction!" Voltaire would blafpheme the law of Chrift, retract, receive the Sacrament, and prefs the confpirators to crufb the wretch!"-I fhudder while I write these horrors!" Rouffeau would lay aside Christianity, or refume it again, and with Calvin would partake the last fupper; write the most fublime encomiums on Christ, that human eloquence could devise, and then finish by blafpheming Christ as a fanatic"."-On furveying this conflict of difcordant opinions, this vain sport of prostituted and wandering reason, we have the plaineft indications that the Philosophists Speak great fwelling words of vanity—they are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth-they Speak evil of the things they underftand not-they Sport themselves with their own deceivings, they turn away their ears from the truth, and are turned unto fables *.

See Barruel, p. 11-13. u Barruel, p. 280. * 2 Peter ii. 18. 12, 13.

2 Tim. ii. 4.